Terry Givens: "Faith works outside the moral sphere"

[jay santos]

Terry Givens from the Mormon Stories podcast.

paraphrasing...
You're not free to disbelieve the law of gravity. Similarly if i were to offer you $1M to believe in the Easter Bunny, you could not force yourself to believe. In these cases, belief operates outside the moral sphere. Faith can only exist in something where there is compelling evidence for or against something. This is why it's absolutely necessary for there to be strong evidences both for and against God/Jesus/Joseph Smith, etc.

He brings up these two extreme examples to show that faith is not a choice, it's not a moral issue in these cases. But faith is a choice and a moral decision when intellectual evidence can reasonably support either side.

But I think I disagree. Why would the middle be any different than the outliers on each side? I think his two examples and statement that faith operates outside the moral sphere is very compelling. It seems faith/belief may be something tied to our brains and our reasoning and has nothing to do with our morality.

[San Juan Sun]

Terry Givens from the Mormon Stories podcast.



He brings up these two extreme examples to show that faith is not a choice, it's not a moral issue in these cases. But faith is a choice and a moral decision when intellectual evidence can reasonably support either side.

But I think I disagree. Why would the middle be any different than the outliers on each side? I think his two examples and statement that faith operates outside the moral sphere is very compelling. It seems faith/belief may be something tied to our brains and our reasoning and has nothing to do with our morality.

I think I agree with you. I've always seen faith as acting in agreement with a principle that one might not have a strong testimony of. For example: I don't have a great testimony of tithing, but I pay a full 10%. And I hope that my faith will grow into a testimony of it later.

No extreme outliers on either side needed, IMO.

[jay santos]

I think I agree with you. I've always seen faith as acting in agreement with a principle that one might not have a strong testimony of. For example: I don't have a great testimony of tithing, but I pay a full 10%. And I hope that my faith will grow into a testimony of it later.

No extreme outliers on either side needed, IMO.

I'm using faith and belief as synonyms. And I'm not sure we agree on the concept, given your example, but maybe do. I'm getting lost in my own thoughts about this.

I think I'm saying there is no morality tied to your testimony/belief of tithing. So if you believe in it, pay it. If you don't believe it, there is no rational or moral reason to pay it.

[San Juan Sun]

I'm using faith and belief as synonyms. And I'm not sure we agree on the concept, given your example, but maybe do. I'm getting lost in my own thoughts about this.

I think I'm saying there is no morality tied to your testimony/belief of tithing. So if you believe in it, pay it. If you don't believe it, there is no rational or moral reason to pay it.

That's why I said "I think I agree with you." And my example probably doesn't convey what I was trying to say very well. Funny how it can be hard to talk about faith.

[pelagius]

Jay, if you're going to represent for the Calvinist Mormons, it can't be a choice.

[Flystripper]

Jay, if you're going to represent for the Calvinist Mormons, it can't be a choice.

predestined!

[wuapinmon]

Jay, if you're going to represent for the Calvinist Mormons, it can't be a choice.

[YOUTUBE]cthHdMDh92E[/YOUTUBE]

[jay santos]

Jay, if you're going to represent for the Calvinist Mormons, it can't be a choice.

Yeah I know I'm all over the place. This is a theoretical discussion anyway.

[pelagius]

Yeah I know I'm all over the place.

Not really, I think most of the time your much closer to Arminian than Calvinist.

[ERCougar]

Terry Givens from the Mormon Stories podcast.



He brings up these two extreme examples to show that faith is not a choice, it's not a moral issue in these cases. But faith is a choice and a moral decision when intellectual evidence can reasonably support either side.

But I think I disagree. Why would the middle be any different than the outliers on each side? I think his two examples and statement that faith operates outside the moral sphere is very compelling. It seems faith/belief may be something tied to our brains and our reasoning and has nothing to do with our morality.

CS Lewis describes faith more in the sense of fidelity than belief. In other words, you form a belief based on evidence and reasoning, but then being human, emotions and situations come into play to disrupt that belief; faith is the ability to hold on to what you already have decided to believe. Only in that sense can it really be viewed as one of the cardinal virtues.

I like Givens' point that you have to be somewhere in the middle for this to really be a virtue, or at least it needs to an issue that is somewhat difficult at times to act in accordance with. Otherwise, everyone, virtuous or not, could exhibit faith, and its place as a cardinal virtue is meaningless.

[jay santos]

OK, a follow up example.

Givens says there's something different about the extreme positions, the Easter Bunny and gravity. You couldn't pay someone $1M to believe in Easter Bunny or to not believe in gravity. It's impossible. But he implied something different about the middle area. I am going to assert there's nothing different.

If you believe in the LDS church, could I pay you $1M to not believe in it? If you didn't believe in the LDS church, could I pay you $1M to believe in it? I think the answer is no.

Could I pay you $1M to believe the Cubs will win the World Series next year? If you an educated opinion that the economy will never turn around with Obama as president, could I pay you $1M to believe it will? If you believe your brother and sister in law will divorce, could I pay you $1M to believe they will stay together?

I don't think you can pay someone to get them to change the way they believe about these things. Does this imply we have no moral control over our beliefs? Is faith/belief (I use them synonymously--if you want to parse them, then assume I'm using the standard definition for belief) a choice?

I think Givens is on to something with the $1M. I could pay you $1M to commit any sin. You may choose not to do it, but you could possibly do it. You could physically follow through with the decision to drink alcohol, not pay tithing, commit adultery, steal money, kill. I do not think you can follow through with a decision to change your beliefs. Can you?

[oxcoug]

He going by "Terry" these days? Seems like it was Terrell last time I read one of his books.

[TheBYUGuy]

I don't think you can pay someone to get them to change the way they believe about these things. Does this imply we have no moral control over our beliefs? Is faith/belief (I use them synonymously--if you want to parse them, then assume I'm using the standard definition for belief) a choice?

I think you're making a good argument that belief is not a choice. My half-baked thought is that belief is not a choice, but faith is.

[jay santos]

He going by "Terry" these days? Seems like it was Terrell last time I read one of his books.

My bad. You're right. Terryl actually.

[DrumNFeather]

I think you're making a good argument that belief is not a choice. My half-baked thought is that belief is not a choice, but faith is.

Or perhaps it is the degrees at which faith is exercised that make it a choice. Isn't faith acting on your beliefs? If I believe x then I act according to that belief and then at some point based on that belief I'll have to exercise faith?

I actually think that tithing is a great example. Some on the board pay a full tithe because they believe 1) in the principle and 2) that "the church" is doing good things with their money. Others may believe in the principle, but their faith does not extend to "the church" using their funds for appropriate things and as such, their money goes elsewhere, or they don't believe in any tithing, but they believe in helping the poor and needy in their own way and they distribute their funds accordingly.